[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38932-38939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19058]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD45


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to 
Designate the Whooping Cranes of the Rocky Mountains as Experimental 
Nonessential and to Remove Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Designations 
From Four Locations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines that 
it will designate the whooping crane (Grus americana) population of the 
Rocky Mountains as an experimental nonessential population and will 
remove whooping crane critical habitat designations from four National 
Wildlife Refuges; Bosque del Apache in New Mexico, Monte Vista and 
Alamosa in Colorado, and Grays Lake in Idaho. The private lands 
involved are holdings inside refuge boundaries and a 1-mile buffer 
around Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The Service will use this 
population, and captive-reared sandhill cranes and whooping cranes, in 
experiments to evaluate methods for introducing whooping cranes into 
the wild where migration is required.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Southwest Regional 
Office, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-
1306.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan MacMullin, Southwest Regional 
Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 505/
248-6663; facsimile 505/248-6922).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, Public Law 97-304, 
added section 10(j) to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that provides for the designation of specific 
introduced populations of listed species as ``experimental 
populations.'' Under other authority of the Act, the Service already 
was permitted to reintroduce populations into unoccupied portions of 
the historic range of a listed species when it would foster the 
conservation and recovery of the species. However, local opposition to 
reintroduction efforts, based on concerns about the restrictions and 
prohibitions on private and Federal activities contained in sections 7 
and 9 of the Act, hampered efforts to use reintroductions as a 
management tool.
    Under section 10(j) of the Act, past and future reintroduced 
populations established outside the current range of a species may be 
designated as ``experimental'' and, under some circumstances further 
designated ``nonessential'' experimental. Such designations increase 
the Service's flexibility to manage such populations because 
``experimental'' populations may be treated as threatened species, 
which allows more discretion in devising management programs than for 
endangered species, especially regarding incidental and other takings. 
Experimental populations ``nonessential'' to the continued existence of 
the species are to be treated as if they were only proposed for listing 
for purposes of section 7 of the Act, except as noted below.
    A ``nonessential'' experimental population is not subject to the 
formal consultation requirement of section 7(a)(2) of the Act, except 
that the full protections accorded a threatened species under section 7 
apply to individuals found on units of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System or the National Park System. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies to carry out programs to conserve listed 
species, applies to all experimental populations. Individuals to be 
reintroduced into any experimental population can be removed from an 
existing source or donor population only if such removal is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species; a permit issued 
in accordance with 50 CFR 17.22 is also required.
    An experiment to reintroduce whooping cranes to their historic 
range in the Rocky Mountains began in 1975,

[[Page 38933]]

testing the ``cross-fostering'' technique of placing whooping crane 
eggs in nests of greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). On May 15, 
1978, whooping crane critical habitat was designated in four areas to 
benefit the whooping cranes being reintroduced into the Rocky Mountains 
(43 FR 20938).
    Section 10(j) requires the Secretary of the Interior to determine 
whether populations reintroduced before 1982 were experimental and 
essential to the continued existence of the species. In 1982, the 
population which migrates between the Gulf Coast of Texas and Northwest 
Territories, Canada, (Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population) then contained 
73 birds (including 17 pairs). The only captive flock (at Patuxent 
Wildlife Research Center) contained 35 birds, but only 5 egg-laying 
females. The whooping crane population in the Rocky Mountains (Rocky 
Mountain Population) contained 14 birds, was increasing through 
releases, and breeding was expected in the near future. It appeared the 
Rocky Mountain reintroduction might soon be an operational success 
rather than an experiment, and the Service considered the population 
essential to the continued existence of the species. Consequently, the 
Service did not designate the Rocky Mountain Population as experimental 
when the Act amendments first provided that opportunity.
    The cross--fostering program was terminated in 1989 because the 
birds were not pairing and the mortality rate was too high to establish 
a self-sustaining population. Only three nonbreeding adults now survive 
in the Rocky Mountain region. The total population of whooping cranes 
has increased to approximately 350 individuals. The wild population now 
numbers approximately 220 individuals, including 47 experienced 
breeding pairs. Four captive populations have also been established 
with approximately 130 whooping cranes, including 15 breeding pairs and 
another 20 pairs due to begin breeding over the next few years. These 
are among the factors discussed below which allow the Secretary to now 
find the Rocky Mountain Population no longer essential to the continued 
existence of the species.
    The Service will remove whooping crane critical habitat 
designations from four National Wildlife Refuges; Bosque del Apache in 
New Mexico, Monte Vista and Alamosa in Colorado, and Grays Lake in 
Idaho. The only private lands involved are private holdings inside 
refuge boundaries and a 1-mile buffer around Grays Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge. These critical habitats were established to provide 
food, water and other nutritional or physiological needs of the 
whooping crane, particularly potential nesting, rearing and feeding 
habitat at Grays Lake, roosting and feeding habitat during migration 
through Alamosa and Monte Vista, and wintering, roosting, and feeding 
habitat at Bosque del Apache. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act will still 
apply to all Federal agencies, and both sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) 
requirements for ``threatened species'' will apply on Service lands 
(National Wildlife Refuges). Federal agencies will still be required to 
carry out programs to conserve this population, and the Act's 
consultation and the National Wildlife Refuge System Refuge 
compatibility requirements will still apply on National Wildlife 
Refuges.
    The proposed actions involve the following Service Regions and the 
States within those Regions: Pacific Region (Idaho), Southwest Region 
(Arizona and New Mexico), and Mountain-Prairie Region (Colorado, 
Montana, Utah, and Wyoming). The principal use areas of this population 
are the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, the lower San Luis 
Valley of Colorado, and summering areas in southeastern Idaho and 
western Wyoming. Southeastern Arizona, northeastern Utah, southwestern 
Montana, northwestern Colorado, and northern New Mexico are only 
occupied temporarily during migration or infrequently by a single 
whooping crane in summer or winter. The portion of the middle Rio 
Grande Valley involved includes a few kilometers on either side of the 
Rio Grande ranging from the town of Belen, New Mexico, southward to 
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, 24 km (15 miles) south of 
Socorro, New Mexico. The portion of the San Luis Valley involved is 24 
km (15 miles) on either side of a line running north-northwest from 
Capulin, Colorado, to Saguache, Colorado.
    On March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), and again on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 
8495), the whooping crane was listed as endangered. Threats resulted 
from hunting and specimen collection, human disturbance, and conversion 
of the primary nesting habitat to hay, pastureland, and grain 
production (Allen 1952) in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
    The whooping crane is in the family Gruidae, Order Gruiformes, and 
is the tallest bird in North America. Males approach 1.5 meters (59 
inches) in height and captive adult males average 7.3 kilograms (16 
pounds), and females 6.4 kilograms (14 pounds). Adults are potentially 
long-lived with an estimated maximum longevity in the wild of 22 to 24 
years (Binkley and Miller 1980) and 27 to 40 years in captivity 
(McNulty 1966). Mating is characterized by monogamous life-long pair 
bonds but individuals pair again following death of a mate. Fertile 
eggs are occasionally produced at 3 years of age, but more typically at 
4 years of age (Mirande et al. 1993). Experienced pairs may not breed 
every year, especially when habitat conditions are poor. Whooping 
cranes ordinarily lay two eggs. They will renest if their first clutch 
is destroyed or lost before mid-incubation (Kuyt 1981). Although two 
eggs are laid, whooping cranes infrequently fledge two chicks.
    In the 19th century, the principal breeding range extended from 
central Illinois northwest through northern Iowa, western Minnesota, 
northeastern North Dakota, southern Manitoba, and Saskatchewan to the 
vicinity of Edmonton, Alberta. Some nesting occurred at other sites 
such as western Wyoming in the 1900's (Allen 1952, Kemsies 1930). A 
nonmigratory population still existed in southwestern Louisiana in the 
1940's (Allen 1952, Gomez 1992). Through the use of two independent 
techniques of population estimation, Banks (1978) derived estimates of 
500 to 700 whooping cranes in 1870. By 1941, the migratory population 
contained only 16 individuals.
    Whooping cranes currently exist in three wild populations and four 
captive locations totaling 350 individuals. The largest captive 
population of 60 birds, including 9 breeding pairs, is located at the 
Patuxent Environmental Science Center (Patuxent) near Laurel, Maryland. 
Another seven pairs at Patuxent should begin producing eggs in the next 
2 years. This site was staffed and administered by the Service as 
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center until October 1993 when it became 
part of National Biological Service and was renamed Patuxent 
Environmental Science Center. In October 1996, it became part of U.S. 
Geological Survey. A captive flock of 44 birds is maintained by the 
Service at the International Crane Foundation (Foundation), a nonprofit 
foundation near Baraboo, Wisconsin. The Foundation flock contains five 
breeding pairs and another five pairs which should enter production in 
the next 2 years. A third captive flock is housed in Calgary, Alberta, 
Canada, at the Calgary Zoo Ranch. This flock, under the oversight of 
the Canadian Wildlife Service, contains 21 cranes, including 1 breeding 
pair. Eight other

[[Page 38934]]

pairs at this facility should begin breeding by late this decade. Two 
pairs maintained at the San Antonio Zoological Gardens and Aquarium in 
San Antonio, Texas, should begin breeding in the next few years.
    The Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population, the only self-sustaining 
natural wild population, contains 165 individuals that nest in the 
Northwest Territories and adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada, primarily 
within the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park. The migration 
route is similar in spring and fall. It passes through northeastern 
Alberta, south-central Saskatchewan, northeastern Montana, western 
North Dakota, western South Dakota, central Nebraska and Kansas, west-
central Oklahoma, and east-central Texas. These birds winter along the 
central Texas, Gulf of Mexico coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge 
and adjacent areas. Whooping cranes adhere to ancestral breeding areas, 
migratory routes, and wintering grounds, leaving little possibility of 
pioneering into new regions. The Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population can be 
expected to continue utilizing its current nesting location with little 
likelihood of expansion, except on a local geographic scale. The flock 
recovered from a population low of 16 birds in 1941. Forty-nine pairs 
nested in 1997. This population remains vulnerable to destruction 
through a natural catastrophe (hurricane), a red tide outbreak, or 
contaminant spill, due primarily to its limited wintering distribution 
along the intracoastal waterway of the Texas coast (Service 1994).
    The reintroduced population in Florida consists of 52 captive-
produced whooping cranes released 1993-1996 in the Kissimmee Prairie. 
In this experimental effort designed to develop a nonmigratory self-
sustaining population designated as experimental nonessential, annual 
releases of 20 or more birds are planned for up to 6 more years. 
Project success will be evaluated annually (58 FR 5647; January 22, 
1993).
    The Rocky Mountain Population consists only of a male and two 
female adult cross-fostered cranes surviving from an experiment to 
establish a migratory, self-sustaining population. These birds are 
termed cross-fostered because they were reared by sandhill cranes at 
Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, a 8,900-hectare marsh in 
southeastern Idaho.
    These cranes winter in the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico 
at Casa Colorado State Game Refuge and Bosque del Apache National 
Wildlife Refuge from November-February. In February-March, they migrate 
north to south-central Colorado where they spend 4-6 weeks in the San 
Luis Valley. The main crane use area in the San Luis Valley is Monte 
Vista National Wildlife Refuge, 10 kilometers south of the town of 
Monte Vista. These whooping cranes spend April-September on their 
summer grounds in southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming. In September-
October, before migration, they flock with sandhill cranes at Grays 
Lake and other wetlands and pastures before migrating southeast through 
northeastern Utah and western Colorado where they remain in the San 
Luis Valley for 4-6 weeks. They migrate through northern New Mexico and 
arrive at the wintering area in early November.
    From 1975-1988, 289 eggs were transferred in the reintroduction 
experiment (including 73 eggs from the captive flock at Patuxent); 210 
hatched, and 85 chicks fledged (Drewien et al. 1989). Population growth 
was slow due to small numbers of fertile eggs in some years and high 
mortality of young before fledging. The losses of chicks and fledged 
individuals, and the absence of breeding, resulted in a peak population 
of only 33 individuals in winter 1984-85.
    By 1985, biologists began to suspect the absence of pairing might 
be due to improper sexual imprinting, particularly by female whooping 
cranes. Sexual imprinting of a foster-reared species on the foster-
parent species had been confirmed in raptors, waterfowl, gulls, 
finches, and gallinaceous birds (Bird et al. 1985, Immelmann 1972). 
Older female whooping cranes frequently did not return in spring to 
Grays Lake or other areas occupied by males on their territories. In 
1981, 1982, and 1989, captive-reared adult female whooping cranes were 
released at Grays Lake to enhance pairing activities and determine if 
adult males recognize conspecifics as mates. These experiments 
indicated that some cross-fostered males recognized conspecific females 
as appropriate mates. Improper sexual imprinting behavior seemed to be 
stronger in the cross-fostered females than in the males.
    An experiment to test for improper sexual imprinting due to foster 
rearing among crane species occurred at the Foundation in 1987 (Mahan 
and Simmers 1992). Sandhill cranes were foster-reared by red-crowned 
cranes (sample n=1), white-naped cranes (n=2), and Siberian cranes 
(n=1). They were then observed from the age of 12 to 24 months, the 
period when pairing typically begins in sandhill cranes. They were 
placed in pens adjacent to an opposite-sexed, same-aged bird of the 
foster species on one side and an opposite-sexed, same-age conspecific 
on the other side. Each test bird socialized more with the foster 
species than with a conspecific and the preference was most apparent 
for females. A cross-fostered young would have to prefer a conspecific 
in order to obtain an appropriate mate. Thus, the cross-fostering 
technique does not appear to be suitable for reintroducing a crane to 
historical habitat.
    The cross-fostering experiment was ended because these birds were 
not pairing and the mortality rate was too high to continue (Garton et 
al. 1989). Several experiments to encourage pair formation were carried 
out from 1986 through 1992 without success (Service 1994). By the 
winter of 1995-1996, cross-fostered adult female whooping cranes of 
ages 4 through 14 years had passed through a nesting season on 45 
occasions without pairing. In 1992, a wild male cross-fostered whooping 
crane and female sandhill crane paired and produced a hybrid chick. 
This pairing is believed to be a consequence of improper sexual 
imprinting which resulted from the cross-fostering process. This is the 
first known instance of cross-species pairing despite frequent 
association of these two species in North America.
    The cross-fostered cranes exhibited various parental behaviors on 
summer territories at Grays Lake and in a pen nearby. These activities 
and chick adoptions at the United States captive facilities suggested 
that some cross-fostered whooping cranes might adopt or bond with and 
rear a whooping crane chick. Such bonding experiments could occur in 
pens with wild-captured adults and would theoretically result in a 
captive-reared juvenile imprinted on conspecifics and exhibiting some 
wild qualities. Wild cross-fostered adults were captured and placed 
with chicks in pens. When the young reached fledging age, all birds 
were released to the wild to learn from their foster parent where to 
migrate and spend the winter. This approach was tested without 
significant success in 1993 and 1994.
    The United States Whooping Crane Recovery Plan was approved January 
23, 1980, and revised December 23, 1986, and February 11, 1994. In 
1985, the Director-General of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the 
Director of the Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding entitled 
``Conservation of the Whooping Crane Related to Coordinated Management 
Activities.'' It was revised in 1990, and 1995. It discusses 
cooperative recovery actions, disposition of birds and eggs, population 
restoration and objectives,

[[Page 38935]]

new population sites, international management, recovery plans, and 
consultation and coordination. All captive whooping cranes and their 
future progeny are jointly owned by the Service and Canadian Wildlife 
Service, and both nations are involved in recovery decisions.
    The recovery plan's criteria for downlisting the whooping crane 
from the endangered to threatened category require maintaining a 
population level in excess of 40 pairs in the Aransas/Wood Buffalo 
Population and establishing 2 additional, self-sustaining populations 
each consisting of at least 25 nesting pairs (Service 1994). The 
experimental reintroduction underway in Florida, if successful, would 
provide the first additional population. The first priority for 
establishing the second reintroduced population is a migratory flock 
within historic nesting habitat in the prairie provinces of Canada 
(Edwards et al. 1994). The Canadian Wildlife Service and provincial 
wildlife agencies are cooperating in field studies to identify such a 
release area. By late in this decade the three principal captive flocks 
should be capable of producing enough whooping cranes to simultaneously 
support reintroductions in Florida and Canada, but there is no 
technique for introducing captive-reared cranes in a migratory 
situation so they will use an appropriate migration route and wintering 
location.
    The Service proposes to use wild whooping cranes of the Rocky 
Mountain Population and captive-reared sandhill cranes and whooping 
cranes to evaluate methods of introducing captive-reared whooping 
cranes into a wild migratory situation. The research proposed within 
the range of the Rocky Mountain Population is needed to identify a 
technique for establishing a wild migratory population of whooping 
cranes in Canada. Such a technique is essential if the Service is to 
achieve recovery goals for downlisting (Task 31 of the Whooping Crane 
Recovery Plan; Service 1994:58).
    The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the 
section 7 requirements of the Act have been fulfilled for the proposed 
action.
    The Rocky Mountains are the preferred location for research on 
techniques for establishing a migratory flock because a small 
experimental population has been present there for 20 years. A large 
data base on whooping crane and sandhill crane habitats and behaviors 
exists for this area which provides a comparative baseline for future 
research in the same geographic area. The Service prefers to avoid 
experimentation in other United States areas of the historic migratory 
range until late this decade when a reintroduction site is selected in 
Canada. The Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements will 
need to be fulfilled for those portions of the United States that would 
be involved as migration and winter areas for a flock reintroduced in 
Canada.
    Adult cranes teach their young where to migrate and spend the 
winter. A promising topic of research in the Rocky Mountains is the use 
of ultralight aircraft to teach captive-reared cranes an appropriate 
migration route and wintering area. In 1993, Mr. Bill Lishman reared 
Canada geese in Ontario, trained them to follow an ultralight aircraft, 
and in fall led 18 on a 600 kilometer flight to Virginia where they 
spent the winter. The following spring at least 13 returned to Ontario 
on their own initiative. In 1994, Mr. Kent Clegg reared six sandhill 
cranes and taught them to follow an ultralight aircraft in local 
flights within Idaho. In 1995, Mr. Clegg raised a group of sandhill 
cranes and led 11 in fall migration from southeastern Idaho to Bosque 
del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. Two were killed by 
golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) during migration and one returned to 
Idaho on its own initiative. After release to the wild in New Mexico, 
two were killed by coyotes (Canis latrans) and two by hunters. The four 
that survived migrated north to Colorado in March and north from 
Colorado in April. Two summered in southeastern Idaho within 53 km of 
the Clegg ranch. The summering site of the other two birds is unknown. 
Three of the 1995 ultralight cranes returned to Bosque del Apache to 
winter in the fall of 1996. In 1996, Mr. Clegg reared eight sandhill 
cranes and led them in migration from Idaho to New Mexico. All birds 
arrived safely in New Mexico and there were no losses to eagles during 
the migration, nor to hunters or coyotes in the first months after 
their release to the wild. The day after their arrival at Bosque del 
Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico, it appeared that two 
research birds joined large flocks of sandhill cranes leaving the 
refuge to migrate south into Mexico. These birds are still missing and 
presumed dead. The other six 1996 cranes integrated with the wild 
cranes within hours of their arrival at the refuge, migrated into 
Colorado in March, and further north in April. Losses to golden eagles, 
coyotes, and hunters were reduced during the 1996-97 study. Rearing, 
migrating, and monitoring techniques were refined. Two severe winter 
storms prolonged the migration, but when conditions were suitable for 
flight the birds were able to fly farther and for longer periods than 
in 1995. Research may be required on some alternative technique in the 
future if experimentation with ultralight aircraft indicates it is not 
a promising reintroduction technique for the Canadian site.
    Satellite transmitters were placed on two 1995 and two 1996 
research cranes in January 1997 to test the merits of these 
transmitters for monitoring movements. The 1995 and 1996 cranes are 
summering in southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Such locations are 
characteristic summering sites for yearling birds reared in 
southeastern Idaho.
    The Rocky Mountain Population qualifies as being nonessential to 
the continued existence of the whooping crane because:
    (1) The three cross-fostered whooping cranes of the Rocky Mountain 
Population are not breeding and all members will likely die in the next 
10 years. They are not contributing to the long-term existence of the 
species in the wild. None of the cross-fostered whooping cranes have 
paired with conspecifics and they appear to be behaviorally sexually 
neutered. Loss of such individuals will not deter recovery of the 
species.
    (2) There are approximately 130 whooping cranes in captivity at 4 
discrete locations and about 235 whooping cranes elsewhere at 2 
locations in the wild. This species has been protected against the 
threat of extinction from a single catastrophic event by gradual 
recovery of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population (average increase of 
4.6 percent per year for the past 50 years, Mirande et al. 1993), and 
by increase and management of the cranes at the captive sites. If the 
average growth rate continues, the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population will 
reach 500 by about 2020. The standard deviation in growth is almost 
double the mean growth, so in some years the population will decline 
temporarily although long-term growth continues to be good. Captive-
produced birds which die during the experiments can be replaced through 
captive breeding or by transfer of eggs from the wild population in 
Canada. Eggs have been transferred to captivity from the Aransas/Wood 
Buffalo Population for building the captive flocks or experimental 
reintroductions since 1967. The wild population has continued to grow 
during this interval despite the egg transfers. Since 1985, biologists 
involved in the egg transfer have endeavored to ensure that one

[[Page 38936]]

viable egg remains in each nest. Such egg switching within the Park 
provides infertile pairs the opportunity to raise a chick. These egg 
switches have increased flock growth and the potential for species 
recovery by an estimated 16-19 percent (Kuyt, pers. comm. 1991). 
Whooping cranes of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population have the highest 
long-term recruitment rate (13.9 percent) of any North American crane 
population (Drewien et al. 1995).
    Egg and chick production doubled in the captive flocks in 1992, and 
has continued to increase to the present. Within the captive population 
there also are 20 young pairs expected to enter the breeding component 
of the population over the next 4 years. Wild- and captive-flock 
increases illustrate the potential of the species to replace individual 
birds which might die during the experimentation.
    (3) The repository of genetic diversity for the species will be the 
approximately 350 wild and captive whooping cranes mentioned in (2) 
above. Any birds selected for research on reintroduction techniques in 
a migratory situation will be as genetically redundant as practical, 
hence any loss of reintroduced animals in the experiments will not 
significantly impact the goal of preserving maximum genetic diversity 
in the species.
    (4) Research in the Rocky Mountain Population will further the 
conservation of the species. Such research is essential to recovery and 
downlisting the species to threatened status. The beneficial result of 
identifying a suitable reintroduction technique for placing captive-
produced whooping cranes in a migratory circumstance outweighs any 
negative effects of the experiments. If a suitable reintroduction 
technique is identified, it will expedite recovery and downlisting/
delisting of the whooping crane.

Management

Effect on the Rocky Mountain Population

    After captive-reared whooping cranes are released to the wild in 
the proposed experiments, the Service does not propose to return them 
to captivity. Avian tuberculosis has been a significant disease problem 
among whooping cranes in the Rocky Mountains and is very difficult to 
detect. To protect captive flocks from this disease, the Service will 
not take a whooping crane from the wild and place it in the captive 
flocks. Wild birds placed in captivity also pose a greater danger 
because: (1) Self-inflicted injury may occur as they attempt to escape 
from caretakers, (2) they may attack and injure caretakers, and (3) 
such cranes are prone to injury when they struggle while being examined 
during health checks.
    The release of six or more captive-reared whooping cranes in the 
future into this population may slightly prolong its existence. The 
numbers proposed, including small additional numbers if additional 
research is required, will be far below the numbers required to have 
any significant likelihood of establishing a self-sustaining 
population. The additional birds in the wild will provide additional 
viewing opportunities for bird watchers, enjoyment for those 
participating in the annual crane festivals at Monte Vista, Colorado, 
and Socorro, New Mexico, and may slightly prolong the existence of wild 
whooping cranes within the Rocky Mountains.

Potential Conflicts

    The release of additional whooping cranes in the Rocky Mountains 
will not alter sandhill crane hunting activities along the migration 
pathway and wintering sites. Sandhill cranes and snow geese (Chen 
cerulescens) are designated as look-alike species, species that look 
somewhat like whooping cranes. Hunters of these species might 
misidentify a whooping crane and shoot it, believing it is a legal 
target. Sandhill cranes are hunted in some areas and precautions are 
taken to reduce the likelihood that whooping cranes might be mistaken 
for sandhill cranes and shot. Sandhill crane hunting is not permitted 
in Idaho and Colorado nor on the national wildlife refuges involved in 
this rule. Hunting sandhill cranes and snow geese has been permitted in 
the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, in northeastern Utah, and 
in a small area in southwestern Wyoming for the past decade without 
causing the known loss of a whooping crane. In New Mexico, the whooping 
cranes generally stay on Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge or 
State game refuges during fall/winter hunting seasons.

Special Handling

    Under the proposed special regulation, which is promulgated under 
authority of section 4(d) of the Act and which accompanies this final 
rule for experimental population designation, Federal and State 
employees and agents would be authorized to relocate whooping cranes to 
avoid conflict with human activities and relocate whooping cranes that 
have moved outside the appropriate release area when removal is 
necessary or requested. Research activities may require capture in the 
wild of cross-fostered or captive-reared and released whooping cranes. 
These individuals will be captured using the night-lighting technique 
which has been used successfully to capture 269 cranes without injury 
(Drewien and Clegg 1992). Cranes utilized in the experiments will be 
equipped with a legband-mounted radio telemetry or satellite 
transmitter and periodically monitored to assess movements. They will 
be checked for mortality or indications of disease (listlessness, 
social exclusion, flightlessness, or obvious weakness).

Mortality

    Although efforts will be made to reduce mortality, some will 
inevitably occur as captive-reared birds adapt to the wild. Collision 
with power lines and fences, predators, and disease are known hazards 
to wild whooping cranes in the Rocky Mountains. The Service anticipates 
the proposed actions may affect the whooping crane due to the potential 
death of one or more wild, cross-fostered and captive-reared 
individuals during the experiments. Such losses are not unique to this 
experiment, but could result during normal life experiences of wild 
whooping cranes and of whooping cranes retained in captivity. Standard 
avicultural precautions taken in shipping, handling, and capture should 
keep losses to a minimum. Recently released whooping cranes will need 
protection from natural sources of mortality (predators, disease, 
inadequate foods) and from human-caused sources of mortality. Natural 
mortality will be reduced through prerelease conditioning, gentle 
release, and vaccination. Human-caused mortality will be minimized 
through conservation education programs.

Health Care

    As a consequence of the proposed experiments, disease could be 
transferred from a captive facility to the wild. Precautions taken to 
ensure that no disease is transferred will be those measures approved 
in previous transfers when the captive whooping crane flock was split 
between Patuxent and the Foundation; when birds were shipped from 1992-
1995 to Calgary Zoo Ranch to start the captive flock for Canadian 
Wildlife Service; and when birds were transferred from 1993-1997 for 
the reintroduction to the wild in Florida. Health screening procedures 
have been developed for release of captive-reared whooping cranes in 
the wild and have proven effective in avoiding disease or parasite 
transfers in multiple shipments

[[Page 38937]]

from 1993-1996. Such techniques have proven effective in previous 
transfers between captive sites and between captive sites and the wild.

Captive Facilities

    Facilities for captive maintenance of the birds in Idaho were 
constructed for earlier studies and are designed similar to facilities 
at Patuxent and the Foundation. They conform to standards set forth in 
the Animal Welfare Act. To further ensure the well-being of birds in 
captivity and their suitability for release to the wild, the pens 
include water where the cranes can feed and roost.

Coordination With Agencies and Interested Parties

    In October 1992, the Canadian and United States Whooping Crane 
Recovery Teams recommended uses for the cross-fostered whooping cranes 
surviving in the Rocky Mountain Population. Both teams suggested using 
the remaining birds in further experimentation. Information about the 
recovery teams' recommendations was mailed to the involved Service 
Regions, States, and special interest groups for their review and 
comments.
    In February 1993, the Southwest Region of the Service sent a 
memorandum to the State wildlife agency director in each of the 
affected States; the chairman and members of the Central Flyway 
Technical Committee; the crane subcommittee of the Pacific Flyway 
Council; representatives of the National Audubon Society; the president 
and trustees of the Whooping Crane Conservation Association; managers 
of national wildlife refuges involved; and to crane festival groups in 
Socorro, New Mexico, and Monte Vista, Colorado, requesting their views 
on actions being considered for the Rocky Mountain Population of 
whooping cranes. In addition, Technical Committees of the Pacific and 
the Central Flyway Councils expressed opinions on the actions. Some 
recipients responded by mail and others provided only verbal comments 
by telephone.
    The involved regions of the Service support the changes. Refuge 
managers at the three locations anticipated no problem with removal of 
the critical habitat designation and changing the designation to 
experimental nonessential. All involved States, the Pacific Flyway 
Crane Subcommittee, the Central Flyway Technical Committee, the Central 
Flyway Council, and the Pacific Flyway Council favored the change in 
designation. The Whooping Crane Conservation Association and Chairman 
of the Crane Festival in Colorado supported the changes. National 
Audubon Society representatives expressed mild concern about possible 
increased hazards to whooping cranes as a consequence of the 
experimental designation but favored additional experimentation.
    A majority of the respondents supported taking some birds into 
captivity, endorsed further experimentation with the birds left in the 
wild, and, after the proposed experiments were completed, favored 
leaving some whooping cranes in the wild for public education, viewing, 
and possible further research. In 1993, the Service decided to leave 
all the birds in the wild so there would be a greater likelihood of 
having a sufficient number of birds for the experiments.
    The Canadian Wildlife Service endorses the actions described in 
this rule. The members of the Canadian and United States Whooping Crane 
Recovery Teams, and professional biologists working with State, 
provincial, Federal, and private groups who have expertise in research 
or management of cranes, also endorse the changes. The Whooping Crane 
Conservation Association and World Wildlife Fund-Canada provided 
funding support for the guide bird experimentation in 1993 and 1994 and 
for ultralight aircraft-crane research in 1995 and 1996, indicating 
their endorsement of such experimental efforts and uses of the Rocky 
Mountain whooping cranes.
    On June 24, 1993, the Service announced the availability of the 
draft revised recovery plan for the whooping crane and solicited review 
and comment (58 FR 34269). Review copies were mailed to the involved 
States, Federal agencies, special interest groups, and others. The plan 
described further proposed experimentation with the Rocky Mountain 
Population. Favorable comments were received on the plan and all 
comments were supportive of the proposed research.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the February 6, 1996, proposed rule (61 FR 4394) the Service 
requested comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of the 
proposal that might contribute to the development of a final decision 
on the proposed rule. A 60-day comment period was provided. State 
wildlife agencies; the National Audubon Society; the Whooping Crane 
Conservation Association; Defenders of Wildlife; Regional Directors of 
each involved Service region; refuge managers; State waterfowl 
biologists and nongame biologists; the Canadian Wildlife Service; the 
Chamber of Commerce at Socorro, New Mexico; representatives of the 
electric utility industry; and private citizens were mailed copies of 
the rule or told of specifics of the rule (total contacts 47) and 
invited to provide comments.
    A Service news release was issued on February 6 to coincide with 
publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. The release, 
entitled ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes To Designate Rocky 
Mountain Population Of Whooping Cranes As Experimental,'' described the 
proposed action, told the readers where to acquire a copy of the rule, 
and provided a name and address to which comments on the action should 
be directed. The news release was sent to newspapers in New Mexico and 
others listed in an outreach plan. The release was sent to Service 
Regional Offices in Portland and Denver for routing to media and 
Congressional Offices in States affected by the proposed actions. The 
news release also was placed on the Internet on the Service's Home Page 
for Region 2 under the news release category. Nine comment letters were 
received. Six letters endorsed and three opposed the proposed action. 
Specific issues raised by those commenting and the Service's responses 
are presented below.
    Letters supporting the actions were received from one individual, a 
representative of the utility industry, a nonprofit conservation 
organization, the Central Flyway Council, and two representatives of 
State wildlife agencies as summarized below. The President of the 
Whooping Crane Conservation Association (Association), a nonprofit 
conservation organization dedicated to conservation of the species, 
wrote in support of the designation change, the removal of critical 
habitat, and the proposed experiments. The Association membership is 
primarily individuals in Canada and the United States.
    The Director of Wyoming Game and Fish Department indicated his 
staff had reviewed the proposed actions and they supported the rule. 
The Terrestrial Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Manager for 
Colorado Division of Wildlife endorsed the actions, the removal of 
restrictions no longer necessary, and the experiments that may prolong 
existence of the flock in the Rocky Mountains. A utility company 
representative wrote in support of the designation change, the removal 
of critical habitat, and the experiments designed to learn how to 
establish additional migratory populations. An individual wrote 
endorsing the change

[[Page 38938]]

in designation and the removal of critical habitat.
    Joe Kramer, Chairman, Central Flyway Council wrote in support of 
the change in designation and the removal of critical habitat 
designations from the three National Wildlife Refuges. He stated the 
Council believes the change provides the flexibility necessary for 
sound and progressive management of this species. The Central Flyway 
Council is comprised of the States of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, 
Wyoming, and the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Northwest Territories, 
and Saskatchewan. Three individuals expressed opposition to the 
proposed actions as summarized below.
    Comment: One respondent felt that nature is best left alone as much 
as possible, disrupting nature's balance causes harm, and no whooping 
crane needs to be taught to migrate.
    Response: The Service agrees that the balance of nature is 
important and should not be disrupted if it is truly a balanced system. 
Unfortunately, many activities of man have disrupted this balance, 
necessitating some intervention by man if species and ecosystems are to 
be conserved. Previous releases of captive-reared sandhill cranes have 
documented that such birds may not exhibit appropriate migration 
behavior (Drewien et al. 1982).
    Comment: A second respondent expressed concern about the low 
numbers of whooping cranes and failed to comprehend how the Service 
could consider any member of the species ``nonessential'' or 
``experimental'.
    Response: The Service understands that the terminology presents an 
enigma. The term ``nonessential'' refers only to those individuals 
which are not essential to future survival of the species. The three 
whooping cranes surviving in the Rocky Mountains are not breeding and 
will eventually die of natural causes. Consequently, they are not 
contributing to the future survival of the species. The small number of 
captive-reared whooping cranes which might be involved in research will 
be individual birds genetically redundant to the captive and wild 
populations. These individuals also are not ``essential'' to survival 
of the species. The Service believes it is justified in designating 
these birds as ``nonessential experimental'' as long as their 
involvement in the research increases the ultimate likelihood of full 
recovery of the species. The purpose of the experimentation is to 
identify a technique for reintroducing whooping cranes in areas where 
migration is required between the nesting grounds and a safe wintering 
site. Until such a technique is identified, the Service will be unable 
to reestablish wild populations in areas where the birds must migrate 
to survive. Full recovery of the species will not be possible until 
additional wild migratory populations are established.
    Comment: A third individual respondent was not opposed to the ``* * 
*experiment per se, only that it not be conducted in New Mexico.'' If 
conducted in New Mexico, the commenter postulated that the Service 
would be signing the immediate death warrant of the cranes because they 
would have to compete against 30,000 hunters, an army of poachers, and 
33 professional hunters of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    Response: Hunters of sandhill cranes and snow geese in the middle 
Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, where the whooping cranes winter, are 
required to take a course on bird identification and pass an exam on 
proper identification of protected species before they are permitted to 
hunt. This requirement has been in effect since whooping cranes were 
reintroduced to the area in 1975. Although the potential exists for 
shooting a whooping crane, we are not aware of a whooping crane being 
killed by hunters in New Mexico since they were reintroduced. The 
nonessential designation will not allow purposeful take such as hunting 
or otherwise intentionally killing cranes. The Service does not agree 
with the respondent's allegation that New Mexico is an inappropriate 
place to accomplish the experimentation.
    Comment: The third respondent ``extremely'' opposed the proposed 
removal of the critical habitat designation, fearing it would permit 
unrestricted herbicide and pesticide spraying, trapping, and placement 
of M-44 sodium cyanide devices, wire snares, and compound 1080 baits by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    Response: When the critical habitat designation is removed from 
National Wildlife Refuges, which is predominantly where the designation 
has been in effect, other Federal agencies, such as U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, must still consult with the Service before undertaking any 
actions affecting the refuge. On private lands, despite the removal of 
critical habitat, the whooping cranes will still be protected from 
intentional killing which is prohibited under section 9 of the Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An Environmental Assessment, prepared under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, is available to the public 
at the Service office identified in the ADDRESSES section. The Service 
determined that this action is not a major Federal action that would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the 
meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508).

Required Determinations

    This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review 
under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as described 
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the 
information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and 
private activities within the experimental population area, significant 
economic impacts will not result from this action. Also, no direct 
costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or record keeping 
requirements are imposed on small entities by this action, and the rule 
contains no record keeping requirements as defined under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule does not 
require a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 because it 
would not have any significant federalism effects as described in the 
order.
    The Service has determined that this action would not involve any 
taking of constitutionally protected property rights that require 
preparation of a takings implication assessment under Executive Order 
12630.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES 
section above).
    Author: The primary author of this document is Dr. James Lewis (see 
ADDRESSES section above) at telephone 505/248-6663 or facsimile 505/
248-6922.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby amends part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter

[[Page 38939]]

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the entry for ``Crane, 
whooping'' under BIRDS, to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                              Vertebrate                                                                   
---------------------------------------------------                     population where                                          Critical     Special  
                                                      Historic range     endangered or       Status           When listed         habitat       rules   
          Common name             Scientific name                          threatened                                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Birds                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Crane, Whooping................  Grus americana...  Canada, U.S.A.     Entire, except     E             1.3,487,621                17.95(b)           NA
                                                     (Rocky Mountains   where listed as                                                                 
                                                     East to            an experimental                                                                 
                                                     Carolinas),        population.                                                                     
                                                     Mexico.                                                                                            
    Do.........................  do...............  do...............  U.S.A. (FL)......  NX            487                              NA     17.84(h)
    Do.........................  do...............  do...............  U.S.A. (CO, ID,    NX            621                              NA     17.84(h)
                                                                        NM, UT, WY).                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Section 17.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(3), 
(h)(4)(ii), and (h)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 17.84  Special rules-vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) The whooping crane populations identified in paragraphs 
(h)(8)(i) and (h)(8)(ii) of this section are nonessential experimental 
populations.
* * * * *
    (3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service) under Sec. 17.32 may take whooping cranes in the wild 
in the experimental population area for educational purposes, 
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the 
species, and other conservation purposes consistent with the Act and in 
accordance with applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws 
and regulations.
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Relocate a whooping crane that has moved outside the Kissimmee 
Prairie or the Rocky Mountain range of the experimental population when 
removal is necessary or requested;
* * * * *
    (8) Geographic areas that nonessential experimental populations 
inhabit include the following--
    (i) The entire State of Florida. The reintroduction site will be 
the Kissimmee Prairie portions of Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and 
Okeechobee counties. Current information indicates that the Kissimmee 
Prairie is within the historic range of the whooping crane in Florida. 
There are no other extant populations of whooping cranes that could 
come into contact with the experimental population. The only two extant 
populations occur well west of the Mississippi River. The Aransas/Wood 
Buffalo National Park population nests in the Northwest Territories and 
adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada, primarily within the boundaries of 
the Wood Buffalo National Park, and winters along the Central Texas 
Gulf of Mexico coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. Whooping 
cranes adhere to ancestral breeding grounds leaving little possibility 
that individuals from the extant population will stray into Florida or 
the Rocky Mountain Population. Studies of whooping cranes have shown 
that migration is a learned rather than an innate behavior. The 
experimental population released at Kissimmee Prairie is expected to 
remain within the prairie region of central Florida; and
    (ii) The States of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah and the 
western half of Wyoming. Birds in this area do not come in contact with 
whooping cranes of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population.
* * * * *
    Dated: June 3, 1997
William Leary,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 97-19058 Filed 7-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P